Double Event, or Triple Event?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

This darkened room I'm in is full of people who have much more knowledge about this case than I, so I consider it an honor and a privilege to be in there with them.

I base all of my beliefs about any of this on the evidence at hand. That's all. Of course the are many loose ends in this case and that's why the statement appears below my signature. Heck, I don't even have a preferred suspect because, to me, there is no credible evidence at this stage to implicate anyone in my opinion.

If that puts me and the majority of people who have studied this case in a darkened room- so be it. For some the light can be so bright that it blinds them anyway.

In the words of Fu Manchu "The world shall here from me again"

[Trevor Marriott]

Hey Trevor,

There is nothing I love more than when the geniuses on these boards tell me to go back and do my research. I have. And I have posted extensively before on a comparison of the wounds in the C5. The condescending know-it-all type attitudes people display on the boards is truly mind boggling sometimes.

RH

I agree with you they really need bringing back down to earth reality checks are free this week in the darkened room. I still think there is room for a few more yet might as well sort them all out in one go then no need to keep going over all of this yet again.

[Jeff Leahy]

It comes down to the individual having the mental capacity to assess and evaluate the differences. Some dont appear to have those attributes.

A significant difference is excatly that you cant change it and you can only look at it one way.

i.e if you say the killer killed all of the 5 why did he not remove the organs from Nicholls -Now please dont say because he was probabaly disturbed cos that a cop out answer.

Why did he take a uterus and its appendages from Chapman but only the uterus from Eddowes.

Why did he take the uterus from Edowes when he had already got one from Chapman.

Why did he strangle some and not other

The list goes on and on all casting a doubt about who killed who

As I said, probably because none of the murders were identical.

And all show signs of continuing development and severity.

Which would appear to go with what is known about psychotic episodes.

Pirate

[Hunter]

Hi Trevor,

This darkened room I'm in is full of people who have much more knowledge about this case than I, so I consider it an honor and a privilege to be in there with them.

I base all of my beliefs about any of this on the evidence at hand. That's all. Of course the are many loose ends in this case and that's why the statement appears below my signature. Heck, I don't even have a preferred suspect because, to me, there is no credible evidence at this stage to implicate anyone in my opinion.

If that puts me and the majority of people who have studied this case in a darkened room- so be it. For some the light can be so bright that it blinds them anyway.

[robhouse]

Hey Trevor,

There is nothing I love more than when the geniuses on these boards tell me to go back and do my research. I have. And I have posted extensively before on a comparison of the wounds in the C5. The condescending know-it-all type attitudes people display on the boards is truly mind boggling sometimes.

RH

[c.d.]

It comes down to the individual having the mental capacity to assess and evaluate the differences. Some dont appear to have those attributes.

Ah, don't be so hard on yourself, Trevor. Just keep studying the case. It will come to you.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Yes, but it all comes down to what you consider "significant" differences. That is purely subjective and different for everyone.

c.d.

It comes down to the individual having the mental capacity to assess and evaluate the differences. Some dont appear to have those attributes.

A significant difference is excatly that you cant change it and you can only look at it one way.

i.e if you say the killer killed all of the 5 why did he not remove the organs from Nicholls -Now please dont say because he was probabaly disturbed cos that a cop out answer.

Why did he take a uterus and its appendages from Chapman but only the uterus from Eddowes.

Why did he take the uterus from Edowes when he had already got one from Chapman.

Why did he strangle some and not other

The list goes on and on all casting a doubt about who killed who

[c.d.]

Hi Trevor,

Yes, but it all comes down to what you consider "significant" differences. That is purely subjective and different for everyone.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well here's the problem - You can take any five crimes of any type be they murders, robberies, rapes etc. Even if it was an absolutely verifiable certainty that they were all committed by the same person, you would still be able to find differences in all five crimes. They might be small differences but differences just the same.

c.d.

Yes but so many significant differences not just an odd one or two as i previoulsy stated.

FAO The Good Micheal
I am only smug when i have to keep trying to make people like you take your head from out of your backside and apply some common sense by engaging your brain before you start hitting the keys

Suggest you go to the darkened room with Hunter and Robhouse.

[Jeff Leahy]

. . . meanwhile at a meeting of Ripperologists, a learned discussion on the identity, number of victims and MO of the Whitechapel Murderer continued without any interruptions . . .

[ATTACH]8569[/ATTACH]

Regards,

Simon

Ah the elephant in the room? That isn’t Chris Scott you know?

RE: MO. I’ve been looking into this in some detail recently because I’m interested in recreating each of the murders as accurately as possible.

The only verdict I can draw is that Jack didn’t use an identical MO.

He simply used the best method at each location to subdue the victim and insure that he didn’t get covered in blood.

Jack used a different MO each time. Only Nichols and Chapman have the same throat cuts (two) both strangled from the front. Stride from behind, one cut, Eddows from the side, one cut.

Kelly, impossible to say but probably from the front.

Pirate

[c.d.]

Well here's the problem - You can take any five crimes of any type be they murders, robberies, rapes etc. Even if it was an absolutely verifiable certainty that they were all committed by the same person, you would still be able to find differences in all five crimes. They might be small differences but differences just the same.

c.d.

[Simon Wood]

. . . meanwhile at a meeting of Ripperologists, a learned discussion on the identity, number of victims and MO of the Whitechapel Murderer continued without any interruptions . . .



Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,
Respectfully...
I have said this before and I will say it again. In my honest opinion, there were two or three different murderers knocking around Whitechapel. Of the infamous C5, C1 and C2 by the same hand. C3 by another, and C4 and C5 by a third. Then you can add in who did the Torso murders into the equasion. So maybe 4.

It's just an honest opinion which I have posted many times. The differences in the murders, as Trevor points out, are as clear as daylight.

Like I have said before, I personally am not totally convinced by Trevor's overall theory, but there are fundamental parts that I am certainly in agreement with.

And I will state what I have always said. Jack the Ripper, the name, is an invention. The "JTR responsible for the C5 group of murders" is ALSO an invention by a policeman who drew heavily from the reasoning of one man, who had only seen, with his own eyes, one victim. On that basis alone, it is a weak supposition and theory.

As far as I am concerned, The Mystery of the Myth, is far more applicable than the Mystery of the Murders. Subterfuge and smokescreens are in abundance with all this. Anderson, spymaster, is the man pulling the strings.

best wishes

Phil

[Hunter]

Lets get this right because it seems to me you personally are hell bent on arguing about issues just for the sake of arguing and trying to impose you arguments on others.

I am no more imposing my argument about issues than anyone else here and it is not for the sake of arguing but to make a point about a specific subject.

Are you suggesting that all of the Whitechapel victims were killed by the same hand. And your only evidence to suggest that is correct is the fact that they were all killed by someone using a knife.

I am suggesting that there is a possible linkage because of victimology, close proximity of crime scenes, evidence of sudden, unexpected assault, compressed timeline of the murders and lack of apparent motive. I don't know anymore than anyone else as to which ones were killed by the same hand but would figure that Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly are strong likelyhoods while McKenzie and Coles are possibilities and Smith being less of a possibility.

Using other analogies in the case of the double event. If 2 motor vehicles were stolen from Whitechapel tonight would the police suspect the same person responsible--------------------

If 3 burglaries occurred in Whitchapel over the next 7 days would they suspect the same person.

The answer is no in both cases because each case is looked at differently it is only then when any marked similarites appear which may suggest the same person. the various lines of enquiry are introduced.

Yes, and I pointed to the marked similarities above.

The police in Whitechapel had never dealt with a series of such murders before. It was a natural thing for them to initally beleive all were carried out by the same person. But of cause 120 years later and with more knowledge and expertise at our disposal we can look back at these murders and cast a serious doubt about their inital views.

We may have more knowledge and expertise to investigate contemporary crimes, but as to the Whitechapel Murders we acually have less because much of the information available then has been lost- police files, search records, inquest records, etc... We have what we have which to most suggest a possible linkage to the murders I mentioned above. Do I definately know that these women were killed by the same hand? No... no more than you definately know that some weren't because the murderer of each of these women was never caught.

[The Good Michael]

Trevor,

We don't even know the M.O. We can surmise some details, but that's all it is, surmise. A case can be made for all the victims Rob Mentioned plus others such as MacKenzie. If we knew exactly how each victim was selected and approached, made or asked to be positioned, how the suspect was dressed, did he smile, did he give flowers, then we might know the M.O. We don't know any of those things. Any attempt to tell others they are wrong about who the victims may have been, is BS. So knock the smug BS off.

Mike